If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

I think in terms if being able to deliberate, the teaching is that Christ did not deliberate his actions as a human would, because while the will, energies and nature are human, they have no hypostatic reality apart from the divine person who gives them existence (that is that the divine person, God the Son, is the subject of the particular existence of human will, nature and energies in question).

« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 11:14:02 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"The devil dared to tempt Christ in the desert. Christ, in Himself, He was never tempted because He was the person of God."

I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure the movie depicts Satan as the source of the temptation. Given my ignorance, I really have no personal opinion on it, although I'm sure Scorcese did a fine job artistically.

On a side note, the Sacred Namer about 30 minutes in was too funny.

Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

I think in terms if being able to deliberate, the teaching is that Christ did not deliberate his actions as a human would, because while the will, energies and nature are human, they have no hypostatic reality apart from the divine person who gives them existence (that is that the divine person, God the Son, is the subject of the particular existence of human will, nature and energies in question).

Sometimes, I fancy myself rather clever. Then someone talks christology and I am mindblown.

If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

I think in terms if being able to deliberate, the teaching is that Christ did not deliberate his actions as a human would, because while the will, energies and nature are human, they have no hypostatic reality apart from the divine person who gives them existence (that is that the divine person, God the Son, is the subject of the particular existence of human will, nature and energies in question).

Sometimes, I fancy myself rather clever. Then someone talks christology and I am mindblown.

If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

"Stand to reason"? Your logic, if applicable, is faulty

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

"Christ, in Himself, He was never tempted because He was the person of God."

Blasphemy!

He never engaged a gnomic will to entertain the temptation, but he was indeed tempted authentically as the Incarnate Logos.

Also confusion of nature/essence and person.

Yup, I agree, and I think the movie actually showed Christ entertaining the temptation, which is why is was so blasphemous to many Christians. I think that's what Fr. Pavlos was trying to say, but of course, in the heat of the moment, people were too emotional to try to put their arguments in a coherent fashion.

It would have been nice for Fr. Pavlos to speak again at the end concerning the guy who wrote about Christ "finding his own divinity" to teach us all to "find our inner divinity" (notice how the book "changed Oprah's life"). I'm sure Fr. Pavlos would say the famous Athanasian line of God being made man so that man might might be made God.

« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 08:09:05 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

"Christ, in Himself, He was never tempted because He was the person of God."

Blasphemy!

He never engaged a gnomic will to entertain the temptation, but he was indeed tempted authentically as the Incarnate Logos.

Also confusion of nature/essence and person.

Mischievous sinner that I am, as soon I heard the good Father say those words all I could think was "Nicholas meet red meat". But, at least I wasn't cruel enough to post a picture of red meat under my quote on account of the Great Lent and my aspirations for hyperdox cred.

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Fr. Pavlos is now Metropolitan Pavlos of America, the president of the Eparchial Synod of the Church of the GOC of America (Old Calendar Greek Orthodox). He is my bishop and Geronda.

I found the comment immediately after Geronda's comment to be reflective of our culture in general; Geronda states a theological distinction between internal and external temptation, and instead of debating the merit of the assertion, the gentleman (who clearly had no idea what the point Geronda was making was or what the implications of the Western clergy's assertions were) proceeds to make the statement that "The Bible says he was tempted so I'll take that over your words!" The question is not whether the Bible says Christ was tempted (does he assume we Orthodox don't ever read the Bible?) but rather what the nature of that temptation was.

To be clear, Geronda did say though several times Christ was not tempted internally as opposed to externally and that the Devil did dare to tempt Christ. I think that it was the best he could have done in the short time allotted for comments. The problem is that Western Christians and Orthodox Christians often have different ideas of just what exactly is a temptation, since they don't generally have recourse to the neptic fathers' teachings as found in the Philokalia.

Yes, Christ was "tempted" in the sense of things were offered to him that were sinful, but he never entered the state of entertaining them, which is the first state of sin, but where most Western Christians would still think is still the state of "being tempted." In other words, sitting around and thinking about whether one should commit a sin is in and of itself sinful, so Christ did not engage in that.

I am of course generalizing here "the" Western Christian position as there is not one position and many would probably disagree with what I have characterized above, but I am speaking from what I witnessed in general among my co-religionists when I was a Protestant and a Roman Catholic.

The reason this is Nestorian is that if Christ in his human nature could sit around and think about whether to sin, but in His divinity He would not, then there could be a split personality, split will in Christ. Nestorians believed that the man Jesus was overshadowed by the Divine Logos, and that they formed a partnership, but that the Divine properties did not transfer to the human nature and vice versa (the technical name for this is communicatio idiomatum, the exchange of properties). That is why Christ raised the dead through His human voice, but also we can say that "God died" on the Cross, even though of course the Divnity did not.

Contrast this with the Orthodox teaching as expounded by St. Cyril of Alexandria: the Logos took flesh on himself. At no time was this flesh an independent human being that the Divinity overshadowed, even from conception--but rather, the Logos formed the human flesh in Mary's womb through the Holy Spirit and assumed it. Yes, it was fully human and had a soul, but at no time was it a new creation (which is why it was a virgin birth, so that a "new" person was not being created. This is why icons of God creating Adam show Jesus Christ doing it, even if at that time Christ had not yet taken flesh.

These topics are of course very complex, and nuanced, which is why the discussion could not have been handled fully in one comments segment on that TV show

If Christ was unable to be tempted would that make Him fully human? I understand the point of wishing to avoid Nestorianism, but if Christ couldn't have been tempted due to His divinity it would stand to reason that He also couldn't have been crucified. What is the traditional patristic teaching on this?

I think in terms if being able to deliberate, the teaching is that Christ did not deliberate his actions as a human would, because while the will, energies and nature are human, they have no hypostatic reality apart from the divine person who gives them existence (that is that the divine person, God the Son, is the subject of the particular existence of human will, nature and energies in question).

Sometimes, I fancy myself rather clever. Then someone talks christology and I am mindblown.

It's a sign of sanity.

I think we all know that I've gone off the deep end already. Save yourselves.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"The devil dared to tempt Christ in the desert. Christ, in Himself, He was never tempted because He was the person of God."

I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure the movie depicts Satan as the source of the temptation. Given my ignorance, I really have no personal opinion on it, although I'm sure Scorcese did a fine job artistically.

On a side note, the Sacred Namer about 30 minutes in was too funny.

I didn't see it either. I think the really controversial part of the film was while Christ was on the Cross but its been a long time. Will have to check out that part, I jumped right to Fr. Pavlos' comment.

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Thank you, Fr. Anastasios for the explanation. That's how I thought I understood the temptation, but some of the threads here made me question, in a good & challenging way, my general understanding...and I like to cause mischief

« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 09:39:29 AM by CoptoGeek »

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

"The devil dared to tempt Christ in the desert. Christ, in Himself, He was never tempted because He was the person of God."

I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty sure the movie depicts Satan as the source of the temptation. Given my ignorance, I really have no personal opinion on it, although I'm sure Scorcese did a fine job artistically.

On a side note, the Sacred Namer about 30 minutes in was too funny.

I didn't see it either. I think the really controversial part of the film was while Christ was on the Cross but its been a long time. Will have to check out that part, I jumped right to Fr. Pavlos' comment.

The real controversial thing for most people when it came out was when it showed Christ and Mary Magdalene married and engaging in activity that married couples do. This was part of the entertaining of the eponymous "last" temptation, which riffs on the Jews and the Bad Thief's admonishments for Jesus to "come down off that cross if you are the Son of God." In the film, it appears that Christ does just that and has a "normal" life afterwards, although things start to really fall apart because He was supposed to die on the cross. In the end, Jesus stays on the cross and world is saved.

I had never thought about it the way Fr. Pavlos (and Fr. A) describe the Nestorianism of the project. It makes complete sense to me knowing what I know now, but, as has been pointed out, it would take far more time to explain it that what is customarily allowed to daytime talk tv.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I saw it when it first came out, and my first criticism was for a story I think I know fairly well, I couldn't follow what was going on.

Btw, during the dream sequence, Christ commits adultery with his sister-in-law, something which most people miss. As Fr. Anastasios said, Christ would not be exercising a gnomic will that way.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth